Phileas Fogg: Why?
EVF's already can do pretty well all that OVF's offer. Technology in EVF's, and AF will only get better. The age of the old flip up mirror, pentaprism OVF is past its due date.
I used to think that way, until I bought an OMD-EM-1 and saw all the pros of its very good EVF over any cons. By all means hang on to your OVF, but EVF's will only get better and better and IMO they are already for the most part good enough. OVF's will probably sooner than later be a thing of the past for all but the smallest niche in the photographic community.
surlezi: The only advantage of OVF over EVF is to be soon dead:
"The impressive new mirrorless model also has the ability to support full live-view continuous shooting on the Tru-finder or LCD screen at up to 8 frames per second, ultimately producing a real-time shooting experience that combines all the benefits of an electronic viewfinder with the immediacy of a through-the-lens optical viewfinder."
But I'm confident some blind DSLR fans will still find reasons not to acknowledge superiority of mirrorless cameras, be it still potential (AF?), or already current.
Neither does my OMD-EM1 but the time it takes for one's brain to initiate one's muscle action to depress a shutter button half way or flip a power on switch probably takes about 1-1.5 seconds.
In other words the time to turn on point between an EVF coming to life and a DSLR coming out of sleep mode is essentially moot.
Favorable: Ok, you got me. I have to take about 1 second or so to flip my POWER ON switch from the camera being asleep before I can use my OMD-EM1, where as the Canon DSLR's I used I can in MF only focus for the shot but then lightly press the shutter button for power on if camera is in sleep mode. That will take about 1 second too before I can then trip the shutter. So yes you may gain a .5second on me and my OMD-E1. But if you too want to use your DSLR's AF, the power must be on before the AF will work and as such then has NO advantage.
I know it's tough to be a dedicated OVF fan at times today. Trust me I was there for so long. I'd listen photography podcasts where they would often champion the rise of mirrorless and I'd poo poo it all. But after moving into mirrorless with my EM-1 well virtually all negative issues I had about mirrorless was tossed out the first time I used it. Any issues of bother I have on EVF's are minor and are off set by the virtues EVF brings to me.
Fivoless point. You cant take any pictures with any DSLR if the battery is exhausted either. So what if you can still look through its OVF. If the battery is DEAD you will be as stuck as an EVF shooter.
As to the battery life nonsense. SO WHAT IF EVF's have lesser frame counts before the battery dies? The batteries are all pretty small and one can just keep an extra one in POCKET! I can swap out the battery on my OMD-EM1 in less than 10 seconds. If I see my battery indicator flashing low, as soon as I have a few seconds BINGO BONGO swap out the battery.
If light is too low for AF, then you switch to MF. EVF's are good for MF too if lighting is too poor for AF. I can focus better with my OMD-EM1 and its EVF manually than I could with any of my OVF DSLR's under such low lighting.
But I was seemingly like you about OVF vs EVF. I fought the force :-) But I now see how a good EVF is just a better all around set up, if not just for me, but seemingly for many other photographers
In darkness with an OVF you only see the darkness, you will not see any more than your own eyes can see in the dark. The EVF may by boosting gain give you some added noise but you will be able to better see the subject and all things around it. I'll take the trade off of more amplified noise gain to be able to better see in low light than not.
To the whiners, the A6300 will likely be selling at street price for under $1000 US by summer 2016 with a kit lens, but many here are wanting all the feature that one will get on a upper end or TOTL Canon or Nikon DSLR. GET REAL!
For a 24mp APS-C mirrorless camera the new A6300 is a nice progression successor to the A6000.
But whine on folks, People in Hell want Snow Cones too. BTW I'm no Sony fan boy. Been a lifer Canon shooter going back to the 1980's and film SLR's. I'm now an Olympus mirrorless shooter but do like what Sony brings to the modern digital camera world get wise.
agentul: men willing to risk their lives to do something great. this is why i doubt we will send astronauts to Mars: the western society is so risk-averse that they will demand 100% possibility of safe return. and no one will dare risk a mission failure.
so probably India or China will go there first.
My point was that we were just kids being kids, we survived and most of never got into any trouble or danger. I along with my friends had a blast playing soldier, cops & robbers etc. We knew it was play not real life.
Speaking for myself, siblings and best friends as kids, we all had parents who cared, worked hard to provide and loved us. But there was minimal of that parental paranoia.
Bad things did happen, such is life. Each of us as individuals must take stock in our ability to be safe enough to survive but in the end the future is not for us to see.
As kids, myself & those around me grew up, had time on our hands, had fun, were sad too, did silly things and got hurt at times. But we made it to adult life where there is real pitfalls and dangers to deal with and tread lightly around. Things that kids do not have to see and worry about.
FEAR AND PARANOIA IS A DISEASE IMO! A return to personal and societal common sense is what we all really need.
People are increasingly paranoid & stupid today. I'm glad I am not growing up a kid today, between paranoid parents & budiniski society in general it's like being in some type of prison for kids today.
I grew up with siblings and friends, just as kids before me did We got dirty, fell and scraped our knees, got hurt playing casual sports. We played cops and robbers, soldier of war as we ran around with toy guns etc. we survived OK and carry fond memories of such.
Yes, some of us suffered injuries and even worse, such is life. But, I can to make a point here, remember notably one August weekend at my buddies house when they lived on a farm. We were 12. We played soldiers, dug a fox hole & set up his grand father's (modified not to work) Sten gun, imagined being in WWII. We slept in the fox hole in our sleeping bags staring at stars, talking about our dreams before falling asleep. We awoke to a pancake breakfast by his mother. GREAT TIMES THAT I'LL NEVER FORGET!
Nukunukoo: China will land some men there by 2021, close to the landing sites, so let's see what new conspiracy will come out. NASA paying off the Chinese to claim the remnants of the equipment are still there?
What did we get? How about a acceleration in technology and especially in solid state electronics, new metalurgy, advances in manufacturing, research and design ideals etc. etc. The Space Race culminating with Apollo and the Moon probably advanced the life we all can lead and can enjoy by maybe 10 years or more.
And YES IT WAS A MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT! Whole new things had to be invented and made safe. Whole new ways of thinking had to come about.
The Space Race in lock step with the then Cold War was as significant for our world afterwards as WWII was after it ended.
Here is the thing for me. The Moon landing hoax fools and their ignorant opinions are an insult to the many people who built America's space programme and ultimately the Apollo Moon landings. From the astronauts, to all the engineers, scientists, astronomers, and the many, many, folks who built, transported and prepared all the gear and rockets to send men to the Moon. This hoax crap is so tiring as its all easily dispelled with even by most educated high school students. It must suck to know that if you are a Moon Landing hoaxer that you are considered to be more stupid on this topic than most educated high school students.
ShoppingBoy: The gold foil on the pretend spacecraft is so phony looking.
How is gold foil suppose to look?
Quote by Pete Conrad, Apollo 12:
Whoopee! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but it's a long one for me.
I always get a chuckle from Pete Conrad's quote.
Nov. 14 1969:
Apollo 12 was almost a tragedy as it was struck by lighting 36 seconds into its launch. Messed up the computers for a number of moments. Pete Conrad said he had his hand on the abort lever waiting to hear if they were to be told to abort and eject the command module of the rising powerful, Saturn V rocket. The computers all reset and came back on a'ok. and Apollo 12 " Yankee Clipper " with LM "Intrepid " in tow were on their way to The Ocean of Storms , on the Moon. :-)
exapixel: We used to be so awesome.
What scares me, is something like 1 in 5 Americans polled no longer believe the Moon missions were real. It's 2015 and the USA is a first world, educated, power, yet 20% or so do not believe in the Moon Missions.... I SADLY SHAKE MY HEAD AND DO A FACE PALM!
fatdeeman: Ok conspiracy theorists come at me, hit me with your best shot GO!
Why do the astronauts look brightly lit when they are in the shadow of the LM, There must have been a flash on the camera?
Um, again, NO! Any true photographer should know what I'm about to say.
ONE: The astronauts wore white suits, white will pick up any light that strikes it.
TWO: As a result of the SUN shining on the MOON, the MOON's own surface is a reflector and as such kicks light up from the ground to fill in shadows of the LM. The white space suits easily reflect this light kicking back off the Moon. The Moon is quite bright, hence why we can see it is bright not only at night but during its orbit of the Earth in day time even with the Sun's bright daylight striking Earth. At 250,000 miles away the Moon especially on a full moon at night reflects lots of light on Earth. So white suited astronauts in shadow on the Moon will be lit up by the reflected Moon's light.
Why do shadows go different directions? Must be multiple photo lights.
Um, no and as any photographer should know, multiple lights would give multiple shadows. Shadows "appear" to go in different directions in some photos, one, because the Moon is NOT SMOOTH. Irregular surfaces will distort shadows appearances, two: lens focal length compression can add to this effect to make appearance of such shadows look more different.
Francis Carver: Okay, so are these the photos taken on the Moon itself -- or the ones taken inside the "Apollo Television Studios" -- which I believe were two converted hangars on the fringe edges of Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards AFB) near Lancaster, California? Either way, they are-a-looking good.
THEY WERE TAKEN FROM THE MOON!
Smeggypants: " NASA funding issues may prevent the space agency from providing additional moon mission scans in the foreseeable future."
Oh please!!! The single most important historical event in history and "funding issues" *may* prevent release of most images. What a load of boll-ocks!!!
****Failed to post new comment because it contains swear words****
The Moon Landings were arguably the most significant event of science and exploration in the 20th. century
Hannu108: They doubt nobody ever landed on the Moon. Even a photo of a waving flag seems to be a fake.
“On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter”
This nonsense about moon landing being a hoax, never ends.
As to the flag, noted above by Boriski, yes, the flag moves as the astronuats push, twist and yank on the pole to mount it into the Moons surface. Once finished the flag stops and hangs supported by a stiff wire to show of the Stars and stripes. There was a camera mounted on the LM that that took still frames in sequence I think something like 12 frames per minute. Once sent into motion you will see the astronauts moving about and around the flag pole, but the flag NEVER MOVES OR FLUTTERS!